Last Call Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-ivi-icmp-address-
review-ietf-v6ops-ivi-icmp-address-genart-lc-dupont-2012-09-27-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-v6ops-ivi-icmp-address |
|---|---|---|
| Requested rev. | no specific revision (document currently at 07) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2012-09-25 | |
| Requested | 2012-09-14 | |
| Authors | Xing Li, Congxiao Bao, Dan Wing, Ramji Vaithianathan, Geoff Huston | |
| Draft last updated | 2012-09-27 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -?? by Francis Dupont
Genart Telechat review of -?? by Francis Dupont Secdir Last Call review of -?? by Tina Tsou |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Francis Dupont |
| State | Completed | |
| Review | review-ietf-v6ops-ivi-icmp-address-genart-lc-dupont-2012-09-27 | |
| Review result | Ready | |
| Review completed: | 2012-09-27 |
Review
review-ietf-v6ops-ivi-icmp-address-genart-lc-dupont-2012-09-27
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-v6ops-ivi-icmp-address-06.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 20120920 IETF LC End Date: 20120925 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Ready Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: In general the language itself could be improved even there is nothing which is hard to understand (i.e., it is a comment only on the form). I suggest to get some help from English native authors or to leave this to the RFC Editor... - 3 page 3: an non-IPv4- -> a non-IPv4- - 3 page 3: (style) bound for to (I suggest "sent to") - 3.1 page 3: uRPF -> unicast reverse path forwarding (uRPF) (note: uRPF is in the RFC Editor abbrev list but not as "well known") - 3.1 page 3: (style) origination (I suggest "origin" or "source") - 3.2 page 4: a question (vs a comment): is RFC 5837 widely supported? - 8 page 5: Henrik Levkowetz is included twice - 9.1 page 5: BCP 84 is included as a normative reference? (I have no concern but I'd like to warn this point is questionable) - 9.2 page 6: I am not sure ISO IS 3166 codes are appropriate in postal addresses, so CN -> China? Regards Francis.Dupont at fdupont.fr